[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Whenever the rights of one conflict with the rights of another, someone has to be willing to give up their right in order to appease the rights of another, which side should give up that right? [/quote]
I think your response was quite mature, and agree with a lot of what you said.
To answer your question, I think people should consider the fundamental principle of separating church from state. Why does that principle exist? What are the dangers if it is abused?
That principle provides a foundation for how gays should be treated in our country. Churches have the right to define morality however they see fit. They are entitled to their religious beliefs. However, those beliefs belong in the church, the temple, and the synagogue rather than in the courthouse.
I think civil unions should be entirely separated from marriage. People can receive a civil union through the government, but churches should never be required to recognize that civil union as a marriage if it contradicts their religious beliefs about what constitutes a marriage.
That way, gays are treated equally under the law, but the churches are not required to compromise their moral principles in the process.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
This is the part where I say that most gay men don’t want to be monogamous.[/quote]
If that’s what you mean, then say it. Stop making sweeping statements about an entire class of people, and start recognizing that a segment of that population doesn’t fit your stereotype. Once you take that step, you might begin to realize that marriage is a good solution for people that choose to take advantage of it.
Better yet, you could start addressing my points instead of ignoring them over and over again.
Like the fact that gay marriage reduces the spread of disease. You don’t like this fact because it hurts your case against gay marriage, but I’m going to keep reminding you of it every time you bemoan the high rate of disease in the gay population.
It’s not rocket science: if you want to reduce the rate of disease among gays, make gay marriage available to them.
If anyone wants to continue the discussion in a constructive way, I’m willing.
I would in particular like to see Thunder’s response to my points. Unfortunately, it looks like the old pattern is repeating itself yet again. Drill down past the stereotypes and overgeneralizations, and the rats always jump ship.
Lacking a substantive response, I’ll see you all after the vote in November
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages by demeaning the institution with gay marriage.[/quote]
Look, if you think your marriage is going to be destroyed because gay marriage is sanctioned at a federal level then I suggest you and your wife see a therapist.
Unless your marriage is unhealthy, in which case you’re safe.
EDIT: Of course, if you’re not married then feel free to ignore the entire post, instead of just ignoring the parts that don’t suit you.
I would in particular like to see Thunder’s response to my points. Unfortunately, it looks like the old pattern is repeating itself yet again. Drill down past the stereotypes and overgeneralizations, and the rats always jump ship.[/quote]
Having been traveling for work for two days, I decide to check back in this thread to see if there is anything to respond to, and what do we see? The Black Knight yet again insisting a non-response as a concession - “the old pattern is repeating itself!”…“the rats have jumped ship!”
It’s no “pattern”, Forlife - it’s being away on business.
My God - what a chasm your self-esteem must be to have to programmatically declare victory when no one is paying attention to you.
Now, the picture has become completely clear - Forlife’s gay marriage “Crusade” is nothing more than a makeshift salve needed to try and heal the enormous set of insecurities he has. Despite all assurances that gay marriage is all about nuts-and-bolts benefits, etc., what is clear is that for Forlife it has everything to do with the desperate need for someone - anyone!! - to take him seriously, notice him, and accept him. Sad to behold.
Easy enough, that explains the dishonesty I’ve encountered - and I’m done with this thread and moving on to issues that matter.
Too funny. You show up after being away on business, throw out a bunch of ad hominem attacks, then confirm everything I just said by jumping ship?
Here is my post again. I would sincerely like to see a constructive response to my points, now that we are finally getting past the surface level.
Or does getting past the surface scare you? Maybe you realize as I do that the fundamental “logic” for the arguments you have been making is flawed and indefensible.
Maybe the scientific conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization in the world are right after all?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Don’t I get the same privilege of “ignoring them entirely” as you do? Or is that only reserved for you?[/quote]
I agree with you that my “ignoring them entirely” comment was off base. I stand corrected on that. Correlations shouldn’t be ignored entirely, because they do suggest the possibility of a causal relationship. I thought the Wiki quote you provided on “Correlation doesn’t imply causation” was excellent, and after reflecting I agree with it 100%.
So far so good. Do you agree that the children of surrogate gay couples would be better off if their parents were married than if they were not married?
Given that you wouldn’t prohibit gay couples from having surrogate children, why wouldn’t this same purpose be served for them?
Gay couples are going to have children regardless of whether or not they get married. For these couples, why wouldn’t you want to incentivize them to join into a binding union? Is it not better for them and their children to be in a binding union than not to be in a binding union?
Your logic for the value of marriage to straight couples is solid. You don’t want straight couples having children outside of marriage. That is not in the best interest of the couple, or of their children.
All I’m asking is for you to consider applying that same logic to gay couples. Doesn’t it similarly make sense for gay couples not to have children outside of marriage?
Why not? If fertility is so crucial to the value of marriage, why wouldn’t you give couples a one time fertility test before granting them a marriage license? From a cost perspective, the loss of tax revenues, social security revenues, etc. from allowing an infertile couple to marry would be more than compensated by the cost of a one time fertility test.
Good point. Why would this not apply to gay couples as well, given their ability to adopt children and to have surrogate children outside of marriage? Wouldn’t it make sense to encourage these couples to marry as well, providing more order and stability to society’s child-raising?
I know you’ve made the above points before, but you haven’t answered my questions on why the same logic doesn’t apply to gay couples. I’m not asking for another round of repetition, I’m asking for a substantive response to my points raised above which you have yet to provide. Let’s drill past the surface and have a real discussion.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages by demeaning the institution with gay marriage.
Look, if you think your marriage is going to be destroyed because gay marriage is sanctioned at a federal level then I suggest you and your wife see a therapist.
Unless your marriage is unhealthy, in which case you’re safe.
EDIT: Of course, if you’re not married then feel free to ignore the entire post, instead of just ignoring the parts that don’t suit you.
Um…you read that in one of my joke posts…you know that right?[/quote]
Hence the joke post back. I should start adding smiley faces to note this.
I would in particular like to see Thunder’s response to my points. Unfortunately, it looks like the old pattern is repeating itself yet again. Drill down past the stereotypes and overgeneralizations, and the rats always jump ship.
Having been traveling for work for two days, I decide to check back in this thread to see if there is anything to respond to, and what do we see? The Black Knight yet again insisting a non-response as a concession - “the old pattern is repeating itself!”…“the rats have jumped ship!”
It’s no “pattern”, Forlife - it’s being away on business.
My God - what a chasm your self-esteem must be to have to programmatically declare victory when no one is paying attention to you.
Now, the picture has become completely clear - Forlife’s gay marriage “Crusade” is nothing more than a makeshift salve needed to try and heal the enormous set of insecurities he has. Despite all assurances that gay marriage is all about nuts-and-bolts benefits, etc., what is clear is that for Forlife it has everything to do with the desperate need for someone - anyone!! - to take him seriously, notice him, and accept him. Sad to behold.
Easy enough, that explains the dishonesty I’ve encountered - and I’m done with this thread and moving on to issues that matter.[/quote]
Thanks for the blinding flash of the obvious!
Clearly the real reason behind gays wanting marriage is so they can feel they are ok and accepted. After all, if others can accept them then maybe they can start accepting themselves.
I mean, it’s not as if being denied federal tax benefits, social security benefits, the right to visit my partner in the hospital, and the 1,000 other federal benefits given to straight married couples would have anything to do with my “agenda”.
And hey, my kids being better off in a stable and secure family setting wouldn’t have anything to do with it either.
Forget about all that and just accept me. Your approval is everything I need and hope for
I mean, it’s not as if being denied federal tax benefits, social security benefits, the right to visit my partner in the hospital, and the 1,000 other federal benefits given to straight married couples would have anything to do with my “agenda”.
And hey, my kids being better off in a stable and secure family setting wouldn’t have anything to do with it either.
Forget about all that and just accept me. Your approval is everything I need and hope for :)[/quote]
I know this is off the subject, but if being gay is natural, a choice, and all that, why can’t you have kids without a woman involved? Seems very contradictory to me.
I think your last reply was a little ironic. Because, they already have that in California, they are called Domestic Partnerships, and they have all the rights of Married Couples. Which, is why a lot of people do not understand the need to allow “Marriage” to change.
I know you’ve said it before, ther 1,000 differences in Gay rights and Married rights. However, the State of California has done it’s best to even the playing field per se.
Anyway, this will probably be my last post on this thread, because I can see it is going no where. The only thing I hope is not to change your mind, but to help you realize that if you want your issues to be taken seriously, you have to at least recognize that there is the possibility that those of us who take religion seriously, notice I am not saying that we are perfect, just that we take religion seriously, and we just may be right to do so.
